[Justus]

Originally Posted by outlaw

My understanding: The warmists' theory/models/predictions are based on a positive feedback with water vapor. As the CO2 increases, warming the atmosphere by re-radiating the heat "bouncing" off of earth, water vapor (BIG green house gas) increases resulting in even more radiating of heat. Without this water vapor positive feedback, the catastrophic predictions don't exist. Counter arguments say that CO2 released into the air actually reaches a saturation point in which there is less and less radiative effect (nonlinear). So, while initial CO2 levels may contribute to warming, more and more input has less and less of an effect on temperatures. One thing most scientists agree on is that much higher levels of CO2 in our air promotes plant growth. Russian, Chinese and Polish leaders are laughing at the West. I believe the AGW scare mongering will go down in history as possibly the biggest fraud ever on the world's people.

A big thumbs up! You are correct!

[tuccillo]

It is more complicated than the simple linear argument you presented. Numerous non-linear interactions can take place such as increased clouds, which both reflect shortwave radiation and absorb longwave radiation. Heat can be stored in the oceans. Reduced snow cover impacts the albedo and amount of shortwave radiation absorbed. You could also argue that it has to get warmer to get colder since warmer temperatures can hold more water vapor that can potentially fall as snow and increase the albedo.

It would be foolish to assume a vast conspiracy. The impact is real. The real questions are how much of an impact and will it be catastrophic. I would guess/hope that we will have a handle on this within the next 20 years. Unlike the people at the extremes, my mind is still open as I understand that this is really a research effort (and one that should be done). Ultimately the models may not be a useful tool for setting public policy since I don't think you can get it right without getting the clouds right and that may not be possible.

Originally Posted by outlaw

My understanding: The warmists' theory/models/predictions are based on a positive feedback with water vapor. As the CO2 increases, warming the atmosphere by re-radiating the heat "bouncing" off of earth, water vapor (BIG green house gas) increases resulting in even more radiating of heat. Without this water vapor positive feedback, the catastrophic predictions don't exist. Counter arguments say that CO2 released into the air actually reaches a saturation point in which there is less and less radiative effect (nonlinear). So, while initial CO2 levels may contribute to warming, more and more input has less and less of an effect on temperatures. One thing most scientists agree on is that much higher levels of CO2 in our air promotes plant growth. Russian, Chinese and Polish leaders are laughing at the West. I believe the AGW scare mongering will go down in history as possibly the biggest fraud ever on the world's people.

[Justus]

...And one single volcanic eruption has a greater effect on the atmosphere and global weather conditions than the machinations of all humans combined.

[tuccillo]

Extremism on either side of the issue is not constructive. This is still a research area. I don't agree with the concept that "it is a done deal" since if it was then all climate change research can be stopped since we know the answer. Neither would I call it a fraud.

Originally Posted by Justus

Sorry about the NOAH...had religion on my mind when I posted. My bad.

Peer review, as you are aware, occurs through the publication of scientific works in well-known Scientific Journals. The problem with theories and data that oppose the AGW theory, i.e., Man-Made Global Warming, is that those "vaunted" peer-reviewed publications, for whatever reason, have for years categorically refused to publish those submissions, regardless of their validity. As a result, top scientists have been shunned, fired and black-listed. There's too much money and too many government jobs at stake. Only recently, as the theory collapses under the preponderance of actual data and observation, has the fraud been exposed for what it is.

BTW, the rain is starting and Noah is loading the boat...

[kbace6]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

Extremism on either side of the issue is not constructive. This is still a research area. I don't agree with the concept that "it is a done deal" since if it was then all climate change research can be stopped since we know the answer. Neither would I call it a fraud.

Tuccillo, you seem to be the only real authority in this area on TOTV so I would appreciate your take on the following.

From what I understand the Pro-"Man Made Global Warming" individual belief is on the side of increased CO2 by man has caused the global temperature to rise. Even the most opposed to that does not really believe the global temperature has not risen. It's too easy to verify. Although I admit they often state that in order to tweak the believers.

The non-believer does not buy into the man-made part and that it is a natural occurring cyclical event.

So here is the settled science from my understanding. There IS a coloration between CO2 and temperature. What IS NOT settled is this. There is no proof one way or the other, that our man made increase in CO2 causes the temperature to rise vs. the natural cyclical rise in temperature actually is causing the increase in CO2 beyond the man made kind.

There is just too much cooking of the books, so to speak, in the scientific community that rely on government funding for them to not give those funding them what they are looking for. It's the tail wagging the dog from what I can see.

I am open to the concept that warming is caused by man, but you absolutely have to prove it. You can't pile on the assumptions because you can't find the data you are looking for. You need to examine all the data you have and if you don't have enough to prove your theory you find more. What you don't do is make up your own data to suit your theory.

Your thoughts sir.
Respectfuly,
-Kevin

[tuccillo]

You bring up good points. There is apparently some evidence (ice cores, I believe) to suggest that increases in CO2 lag increases in temperature. Also, the only "data" (in my mind anyway) to link anthropogenic CO2 increases with global temperature increases comes from climate models. The problem I see is public policy is being shaped based on model simulations and I don't believe they are ready for prime time (and may never be). The rhetoric on both sides can be nauseating but the worst is when anyone says "the science is settled" - that is just a stupid thing to say. You will be attacked if you suggest otherwise. This is still a research area. Eventually the truth will bubble to the surface as it is out there. My belief is that anthropogenic increases in CO2 does have an impact but it will be less than is currently believed and will not create catastrophic events. Don't believe everything you are told but don't bury your head in the sand either.

Originally Posted by kbace6

Tuccillo, you seem to be the only real authority in this area on TOTV so I would appreciate your take on the following.

From what I understand the Pro-"Man Made Global Warming" individual belief is on the side of increased CO2 by man has caused the global temperature to rise. Even the most opposed to that does not really believe the global temperature has not risen. It's too easy to verify. Although I admit they often state that in order to tweak the believers.

The non-believer does not buy into the man-made part and that it is a natural occurring cyclical event.

So here is the settled science from my understanding. There IS a coloration between CO2 and temperature. What IS NOT settled is this. There is no proof one way or the other, that our man made increase in CO2 causes the temperature to rise vs. the natural cyclical rise in temperature actually is causing the increase in CO2 beyond the man made kind.

There is just too much cooking of the books, so to speak, in the scientific community that rely on government funding for them to not give those funding them what they are looking for. It's the tail wagging the dog from what I can see.

I am open to the concept that warming is caused by man, but you absolutely have to prove it. You can't pile on the assumptions because you can't find the data you are looking for. You need to examine all the data you have and if you don't have enough to prove your theory you find more. What you don't do is make up your own data to suit your theory.

Your thoughts sir.
Respectfuly,
-Kevin

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

...the worst is when anyone says "the science is settled" - that is just a stupid thing to say...

Couldn't agree with you more on that point.

[Carl in Tampa]

Tuccillo, the big heater in this whole situation is the Sun, regardless of how the heat is processed when it arrives on Earth.

1. Do you dismiss the effects of the Maunder Effect?

2. We have had ice ages, and the retreat of the ice caps (from as far South as current Kansas) before there were humans on Earth polluting the atmosphere. Why should we not expect Global Cooling and Global Warming to continue regardless of what we do?

3. As resourceful as humans are, shouldn't we able to accommodate ourselves to moderate climate change over the decades? After all, wasn't farming once done in Greenland? With global warming we could do that again.

[rubicon]

A guy is going to start a company. He gathers an engineer, lawyer and accountant. He asks each of them only one question in separate interviews: How much is 2 + 2? The engineer answers with "absolutely it can only be 4". The attorney says "its 4 but I can argue that it is 5". The accountant closed the door pulls down the shades and says "how much do you want it to be"? I offer this story not to denigrate any profession but to illustrate the human experience

Experts have manipulated data/facts forever and or been so wrong on issues from the evolution of mankind to Y2K to health scares about food or a population explosion that would not been able to sustain itself, to the topic of discussion here ....but here we are

So the average Joe like me has witnessed so many of these "scientist now believe" or "chicken little stories" that the scientific/ expert communities have loss credibility especially when they see what nature can do and yet mankind still survives. And not to be unkind to this community the undertaking is just too vast stretching over millions and millions of years with so many variables some known and many unknowns that to make such prediction it difficult but to make such absolute claims either strong belief or conceit. No i am not saying its impossible I am only saying it should be done with "certainty as we know it now or a qualified opinion/ always unsettled

[tuccillo]

Yes, that is pretty much what I said. It is still, in my opinion, an area of research and we shouldn't be setting public policy at this point.

Originally Posted by rubicon

A guy is going to start a company. He gathers an engineer, lawyer and accountant. He asks each of them only one question in separate interviews: How much is 2 + 2? The engineer answers with "absolutely it can only be 4". The attorney says "its 4 but I can argue that it is 5". The accountant closed the door pulls down the shades and says "how much do you want it to be"? I offer this story not to denigrate any profession but to illustrate the human experience

Experts have manipulated data/facts forever and or been so wrong on issues from the evolution of mankind to Y2K to health scares about food or a population explosion that would not been able to sustain itself, to the topic of discussion here ....but here we are

So the average Joe like me has witnessed so many of these "scientist now believe" or "chicken little stories" that the scientific/ expert communities have loss credibility especially when they see what nature can do and yet mankind still survives. And not to be unkind to this community the undertaking is just too vast stretching over millions and millions of years with so many variables some known and many unknowns that to make such prediction it difficult but to make such absolute claims either strong belief or conceit. No i am not saying its impossible I am only saying it should be done with "certainty as we know it now or a qualified opinion/ always unsettled

[tuccillo]

As I previously stated, we really don't know the size of the anthropogenic perturbation on the longer term natural climate trend. It could be big or small. I suspect it will be small but, again, we don't know (although some people are convinced it is large).

Originally Posted by Carl in Tampa

Tuccillo, the big heater in this whole situation is the Sun, regardless of how the heat is processed when it arrives on Earth.

1. Do you dismiss the effects of the Maunder Effect?

2. We have had ice ages, and the retreat of the ice caps (from as far South as current Kansas) before there were humans on Earth polluting the atmosphere. Why should we not expect Global Cooling and Global Warming to continue regardless of what we do?

3. As resourceful as humans are, shouldn't we able to accommodate ourselves to moderate climate change over the decades? After all, wasn't farming once done in Greenland? With global warming we could do that again.

[outlaw]

The AGW community has made it's bed. 18 years and no warming. Yes, I know there are explanations for this "hiatus"; 50 of them, take your pick. And one of those is that the extra heat is being stored in the oceans. And now our own government is doctoring ocean temperature buoy data to show higher temperatures than the data actually shows. None of their predictions have come to fruition. More and more scientists are speaking out against this fabricated disaster. It is all about grant money, wealth redistribution, and control. Don't be naive to think a conspiracy can't be in play. We're talking about a few men who controlled two or three data sets from which 90% of papers were written. Climategate revealed how calculating and dishonest these few men are.

[Justus]

Originally Posted by outlaw

The AGW community has made it's bed. 18 years and no warming. Yes, I know there are explanations for this "hiatus"; 50 of them, take your pick. And one of those is that the extra heat is being stored in the oceans. And now our own government is doctoring ocean temperature buoy data to show higher temperatures than the data actually shows. None of their predictions have come to fruition. More and more scientists are speaking out against this fabricated disaster. It is all about grant money, wealth redistribution, and control. Don't be naive to think a conspiracy can't be in play. We're talking about a few men who controlled two or three data sets from which 90% of papers were written. Climategate revealed how calculating and dishonest these few men are.

Amen!

[tuccillo]

I suspect you were never trained as a scientist. I was. Although I remain skeptical, I try to be open minded. I know some of the players involved in the research and to state there is a conspiracy is nonsense. Time will tell if we are on a bad trajectory of man's doing as more research is done. To state categorically that there is no anthropogenic impacts is as ludicrous as saying the "science is settled". By the way, many papers are about results from model simulations and the modellers control their own datasets, not some "few men".

Originally Posted by outlaw

The AGW community has made it's bed. 18 years and no warming. Yes, I know there are explanations for this "hiatus"; 50 of them, take your pick. And one of those is that the extra heat is being stored in the oceans. And now our own government is doctoring ocean temperature buoy data to show higher temperatures than the data actually shows. None of their predictions have come to fruition. More and more scientists are speaking out against this fabricated disaster. It is all about grant money, wealth redistribution, and control. Don't be naive to think a conspiracy can't be in play. We're talking about a few men who controlled two or three data sets from which 90% of papers were written. Climategate revealed how calculating and dishonest these few men are.

[Chi-Town]

Regardless of where you stand this is an easy read from NASA:

What's Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise